About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18
our spending issues and would not incorporate $1 trillion or more of increased taxes which will just simply go to more spending. how could we possibly support a budget with a $16.7 trillion debt that plunges us further into debt, with a staggering increase in debt, and also spending that doesn't reduce spending but simply reduces the rate of growth of spending, which is a step but nothing nearly appropriate to what we are facing. so this budget grows government. let's not make any excuses. it grows government by increasing spending. and it grows government by a massive increase in taxes. just after we've had one a few months ago. and not counting the massive increase in taxes that's going to occur beginning in 2014 with the implementation of obamacare. when we add that up, when we look at the cost of that, we face dire circumstances. and you would think that the budget being offered to us would not increase debt by 42%, but would address the real problem. now, i know there's been a dispute about how much this budget revenue, taxes are increased. some say $1.5 trillion. those that hav
congress, including the deal on the bush tax cuts that were made at year end. $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction over the next ten years. and all also agree that $is.8is- that $1.8 trillion was gutting expenses and a little more than $600 billion of this was revenues achieved through the year-end bush tax cut deal. so everwhelmingly what has been done thus far has been in spending cuts rather than new revenues. it is very important for us to know that. it is very important for folks to realize that democrats are willing to make are hard calls about spending. we've done it already. but the question before this body and the question before the house now is going forward, what do we do to achieve additional deficit reduction that's consistent with having a growing economy? and the approaches of the senate and the house on this could not be more different. the house approach basically says that all additional deficit reduction should be achieved by cutting spending. by looking at one side of the balance sheet. i do not know of a business, i do not know of a family, i do not know of other u
loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations. in addition to replacing sequestration with deficit reduction that is far more responsible, our budget follows the advice of experts and economists across the political spectrum who say it makes sense to invest in job creation in the short term while putting ourselves on a strong path to responsible and sustainable deficit and deficit reduction over the immediate -- immediate and long term. we believe that in order to truly tackle our economic and fiscal challenges in the real world and not just make them disappear on paper, we need a strong foundation for growth built from the middle out. so this budget invests in a $100 billion economic recovery protection plan to put workers back on the job, repairing our nations highest priority, deteriorating infrastructure and fixing our crumbling schools and installing critical educational technology like broadband that our students need to succeed. this plan creates an infrastructure bank to leverage public funds with private inv
. he's planning this year to abolish the corporate and individual income tax, moving in a very different direction than the national democrats want to and winning elections with that approach. so there's a lot to be learned both by the failure of the romney campaign and the senate races and the successes the republicans have had at the state level. >> host: and we're taking your calls in this segment with grover norquist with americans for tax reform. the phone lines are open. democrats, 202-585-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881. independents, 202-585-3882. grover norquist known as an expert on some of these budget issues. you bring up the senate budget that we saw from budget chairwoman patty murray last week with. talk about that and how you think it compares to paul ryan's budget. >> guest: there are two major differences. they certainly go in different directions. the paul ryan budget balances in ten years and does not raise taxes. patty murray's budget never balances and raises taxes $1.5 trillion over the next decade. so what the democrats and patty murray are saying in add
on a new tax release coming in the years for the creative industries like high end television and animation with new support for our world class visual effect. to help small firms increase. spend through the small business research initiative. we will fund the proposal po make growth available to small firms seeking advice on how to expand. and putting new control on what regulators can charge by giving a new requirement to have a -- growth perspective of employers. mr. deputy speaker, a vital sector for our economy and the cost of doing business is energy. creating a low carbon economy is done by create jobs rather than -- was a major step forward for new nuclear. today with help of we are also announcing our intelligence to take two projects to the next stage of development will support the manufacture of mission vessels in britain with new takes incentive and the honorable members has urged do you passionately and in a nonpartisan way about the damage of doing the famous ceramic industry and persuaded me we will exempt from next year the industrial processes for the industry and others f
that would be devastating for our families and the economy, dismantling medicare and ending up cutting taxes for the rich while raising them on the middle class. and not only that, but it did rely on gimmicks and tricks to hit that arbitrary date. there is nothing balanced about that kind of approach, and i'm very glad that every member of the senate had an opportunity to be clear about where we stand on that. mr. president, the senate also voted yesterday to specifically reject the idea that medicare should be dismantled or voucherrized. i'm glad we had strong bipartisan support on that amendment. we also voted clearly for the idea that while both sides favor closing tax loopholes and ending wasteful reductions that favored the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations, the senate thinks some of that revenue should be used to tackle the deficit and invest in the middle class, not be used just to simply cut tax rates for the rich the way that the house budget did. so, mr. president, we have a few more hours of debate this morning between now and 11:00, followed by some votes, and then we
, our chair says that this is a pro-growth, pro-middle-class budget. i say it's pro-tax, pro-spend, pro-debt budget. it's a budget of deep disappointment. it's a budget that comes nowhere near doing the things necessary to put america on a sound path. it's a budget that does indeed reflect the stark differences between our parties. it's rather remarkable to me the extent to which our majority party in the united states senate has no interest in producing a budget that actually balances and actually puts america on the right path. they say they care about growth, and i know they do. i know they would like to see the economy grow more and more jobs be created because we have had the slowest recovery during this recession since any time after the world war ii, at least. very, very slow. but we have done something to a degree we have never done before, and that is borrow and spend to stimulate the economy. and someone has compared borrowing and spending to stimulate the economy to the idea of someone taking a bucket, scooping up water in one end of the swimming pool and pouring it into the
to end medicare as we know it. nobody, as in the ryan budget, wants to reduce taxes dramatically on the wealthiest americans -- 39% to 25% -- and then take away deductions from middle-class people, good deductions that make sense like the mortgage deduction, the charitable deduction, the retitle deduction, the health care reduction. no, no wants to do that. and no one wants to eat our seed corn. investment in education, investment in infrastructure, investment in sign b scientific research in order to keep narrow loopholes open, reductions if you move the business overseas. no, they don't want to debate that. but now we have a budget. because of the leadership of the chair of the budget committee and the members of her committee -- and, by the way, this is no -- this is not a small group of democrats. it runs from our most liberal members to our most conservative members, all united around the budget that is fiscally responsible. it meets the gramm-rudman -- i mean, i'm on old guy -- the simpson-bowles constraints, budget target. it invests in jobs in the economy, and closes loop
't the president, but the governor of california, and tax reform happened in that state. and it wasn't until later, ironically back in california, when ronald reagan as the president signed into raw the economic recovery -- into law the economic recovery act. real reform happened in the states. as was mentioned yesterday, there are now in america some 30 states that have republican governors and nearly as many that have republican legislatures. [applause] and so that's the good news. the good news is we have success, and it's happening in our states, and we can learn from that to tell our friends and our colleagues in washington how to move forward. because, you see, in the states to be successful we have to be optimistic. we have to be relevant. and most importantly, we have to be courageous. let me talk to you a little bit about each of those three things. you see, when it talks about being inspirational and optimistics, one of the things that's interesting is when i first ran for governor -- i have to say first because who would have thought i'd have to get elected twice in the same term -- [la
for considering is the tax and spending blueprint for fiscal year 2014. live coverage at 2:15 eastern here on c-span2. south carolina is holding a primary today in the 1st congressional house district. here's a look at that race. >> host: well, here is the front page of the state newspaper this morning, a story by gina smith for the island packet. turnout will decide today's election for the 1st congressional seat in south carolina. gina smith is joining us on the phone this morning. of gina smith, tell me about this race. who's running and why? >> guest: well, good morning from south carolina. this is like christmas morning for me, i'm so excited. [laughter] this is really an exciting race. we have 18 republicans, two democrats, an incredibly crowded field. but some of the names in this race just make it just delicious to watch. we have mark stanford, the former -- sanford, the former governor who most of the nation remembers as the guy who slipped out of the country in 2009 so he could go visit his mistress, and he -- everyone thought he was hiking the appalachian trail, but he was up to some
from france, that we cut taxes and paid for an entire war out of debt. so when we added some $2 trillion to the national credit card, which is a marriage -- major component of the debt that has been accrued in 2001. when we think about debt and deficits, there are two kinds of deficits. those are those that invest in human capital or infrastructure or invest in education and there are those who do not. which endanger our future by adding to the national debt, and this war deficit was the second kind. my third point that i am passionate about, a lot it's difficult for many people to be passionate about accounting. i'm passionate about the lack of war accounting. one of the purposes of our book, and the several book chapters that we have written since then is to argue that bad accounting matters. the u.s. owes nearly a trillion dollars in what business would call deferred compensation to the men and women who fought the war, but this liability doesn't appear anywhere on the national balance sheet. we did not account for the value of the 6,6057 lives lost in afghanistan. that's jus
want to hold hack-a-thons in tax-heavy cities like san francisco, austin, denver and new york to forge relationships with developers and stay on the cutting edge. fourth, once our new operation is up and running, we'll embark on a data and digital road show to demonstrate what campaigns and state parties can do to enhance their own operations. the report recommended getting early buy-in from all partners. fifth, we'll upgrade gop.com as a platform, redesigning it to better utilize social media and serve an increasingly mobile audience. sixth, we're going to be setting up an rnc field office in the san francisco area. as we learned with visits to the silicon valley and conversations with top tech firms, many of the best minds are on the other side of the country. having an office there will make it easier for technologynologists -- technologists to join in our efforts and serve as a hub for our data and digital political training. by doing all of this, we'll enter 2014 and 2016 with a complete hi revitalized -- completely revitalized approach to campaign mechanics and technology. so fin
direct investment, reducing red tape, increasing the supply of electricity, improving the tax system, strengthening the ability to enforce contracts will all live in the is ranking and spur business growth in a way that has been missing thus far. since asia's economy is largely based on global supply chains, it is absolutely critical for india to enact reforms, to liberalize its economy, to tap into this regional market. this is out in the anchors itself in the asia-pacific region, and we should do what we can to help leverage those reforms inside india. that is why i believe the administration must redouble its efforts to secure a u.s.-india bilateral investment treaty. current negotiations are proceeding far too slowly. there are important issues to resolve. it's going to take a concerted effort to make progress, but once the vat is firmly in place, the u.s. should work with india on a free trade agreement that will foster more trade. we should also work with india on high-tech visas where both of our countries jointly benefit. i strongly believe that we are goods and services acro
spending of their tax dollars, is that the public views space much as most people view their cars, they just want them to work. they don't care about the mechanics or how to build or repair a car, they just want to drive the car. similarly with space, because of the resounding success of nasa and other organizations responsible for putting substantial space infrastructure into orbit, americans, indeed people all over the world, use their atm cards, use gps in their cars and boats and rely on the weather channel to tell them whether they should carry an umbrella totally oblivious to the role that space assets play in providing that information. so in that regard the immediate benefits of space activity are not forgotten to most of the public. perhaps that knowledge was never known in the first place. space is associated largely with exploration and so considered expendable during times of economic restraint, something that cannot be put off -- that can be put off until later. but that premise is incorrect even regarding exploration. infrastructure isn't built or launched quickly an
and workers from significant job loss by providing a point of order against a carbon tax or a fee on carbon emissions. energy intensive jobs are the first to go when your utility prices get uncompetitive. your ability to compete in the world marketplace, the price of american made goods, what families pay at the pump, what they pay for heating and cooli cooling, what they pay for every american product they make would be impacted by a carbon tax or fee. and i urge the support of this amendment. mrs. murray: mr. president if. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i yield one minute to the senator from rhode island. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, except for perhaps in congress and in the boardrooms of exxonmobil, it is no longer credible to deny what carbon pollution -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. whitehouse: -- it is no longer credible to ignore what carbon pollution is doing to our atmospheres and to our oceans. we aid and abet that harm by subsidizing carbon, distorting the market
that there were, in fact, many new taxes, almost a trillion dollars of new taxes in the health care law. and despite the president's firm pledge at that time not to raise taxes by even one dime on middle-class americans, i at that time asked the joint tack committee to evaluate the law and tell us if there were such took in the law. the letter i received back from joint tax indicated there were at least seven taxes in the health care law that did squarely hit the middle class, and not just in a small way. it's about at least a quarter of a trillion dollars of new taxes that the middle class will pay if we don't fix it. in fact, it's 73 million american families that will ultimately pay this new tax in the obamacare legislation if we don't reform it. so this is an amendment i have brought during the consideration of the health care law. it was defeated then by a claim that there were no taxes in the bill. we now know there are took in the bill. this is just our chance now that these taxes are beginning to be implemented to remove them from the law. the presiding officer: the senator's ti
. my staff has worked with me to draft the original tax credit for businesses that hire veterans, and i'm honored to see that has been adopted by this congress and the president. we have spearheaded efforts to improve mental health screenings for all branches of the military based on montana's strong model for catching the warning signs of ptsd. we started that in montana. it is now incorporated as national defense policy. in the last ten years, our nation has also been fighting terrorists in afghanistan. as we reflect on the costs of the war in iraq, we know that now is the time for afghans to take responsibility for their own country. in 2013, $97 billion will go to the war in afghanistan alone. do you know the money that's being spent in both iraq and afghanistan is enough to double the number of public elementary schools in the united states and rebuild the american interstate highway system five times over. dollars spent daily in afghanistan need to be spent on nation building here at home. i am proud that we are closer than ever to bringing all our troops home. it is not enough to
with that picture. we're going to create dependency and then we're going to indirectly tax the people of wyoming so that one of the great areas of commerce and the visitors that come to wyoming to see yellowstone park, they're going to pay for that with their own posttax money. that can't fit with a vision of america that almost everybody else in this country believes in. it doesn't fit. other national parks have reported camp grounds that are going to be closing, reduced maintenance. so we're going to take this $6 million and we're going to use it to help open up these parks and allow the park service to have the parks open on time. instead of creating dependency in a program -- and the original authorization shouldn't be getting any money, shouldn't have been getting money for the last ten years -- going to take that money and do something for the american people. the next amendment is amendment number 65 as modified. and this is one that really gets my goat. the national science foundation funds lots of great scientific endeavors in this country. as a matter of fact, they have about four times a
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)